Sezaryen skar gebeliği sonrası yönetim ve reprodüktif sonuçlar: 60 kadından oluşan bir kohortta iki üçüncül merkezin deneyimler

Abstract

Amaçlar: Bu çalışmanın amacı sezaryen skar gebeliği (CSP) tanısı almış kadınların tedavi yaklaşımlarını ve reprodüktif sonuçlarını analiz etmektir. Yöntemler: Ocak 2020 ile Aralık 2023 tarihleri arasında, toplamda 49,733 doğumun gerçekleştiği iki üçüncü basamak merkezde CSP tanısı konmuş altmış hastanın retrospektif analizi yapıldı. Demografik, klinik ve laboratuvar özellikler, komplikasyonlar, tedavi yöntemleri ve reprodüktif sonuçlar incelendi. Hastalar, uygulanan tedavi yöntemine göre iki gruba ayrıldı: izole tedavi uygulananlar (n=45, %75) ve kombine tedavi uygulananlar (n=15, %25) ve bu grupların sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar: Hastaların ortalama yaşı 34 yıl (±5.5) (aralık: 21-46) idi. Başvuru sırasındaki ortalama gebelik yaşı 6.86 hafta (±1.82) olup, vakaların %35'inde fetal kalp atımı pozitif olarak saptandı. Vakaların %28.3'ünde komplikasyonlar gelişti ve en yaygın komplikasyon hematomdu (%26.7). Kombine tedavi grubunda kan transfüzyonu ve hematom ile mesane yaralanması gibi komplikasyonlar daha yüksek oranlarda görüldü (sırasıyla p=0.005 ve p<0.001). Tekrar gebelik isteyen 16 hastanın (%26.7) 14’ü başarılı bir şekilde gebe kaldı. Bu gebeliklerden 7’si erken gebelik kaybı ile sonuçlanırken, 7’si 35 haftadan sonra canlı doğumla sonuçlandı. Tartışma: CSP'nin erken teşhisi ve kanıta dayalı tedavisi, hayatı tehdit eden obstetrik komplikasyonların önlenmesinde kritik öneme sahiptir. Optimal tanı ve tedavi stratejilerini belirlemek için daha geniş, prospektif çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

• Sezaryen skar gebeliği
• tedavi
• tedavi yaklaşımları
• reprodüktif sonuçlar

Management and reproductive outcomes following cesarean scar pregnancy: experiences of two tertiary centers in a cohort of 60 women

Abstract

Aims: This study aims to analyze the treatment approaches and reproductive outcomes of women diagnosed with cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on sixty patients diagnosed with CSP between January 2020 and December 2023 at two tertiary centers with a combined total of 49,733 births during the study period. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics, complications, treatment methods, and reproductive outcomes were examined. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their treatment approach: isolated treatment (n=45, 75%) and combined treatment (n=15, 25%), and the outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: The mean age of all patients was 34 years (±5.5) (range: 21-46). The mean gestational age at admission was 6.86 weeks (±1.82), with 35% showing positive fetal heartbeats. Complications occurred in 28.3% of cases, with hematomas being the most common (26.7%). The combined treatment group had higher rates of blood transfusions and complications, including hematomas and bladder injuries (p=0.005 and p<0.001, respectively). Of the 16 patients (26.7%) who desired future pregnancy, 14 successfully conceived. Among these pregnancies, 7 resulted in early pregnancy loss, while 7 resulted in live births, all of which were delivered after 35 weeks of gestation. Conclusion: Early diagnosis and evidence-based treatment of CSP are essential for preventing life-threatening obstetric complications. Larger, prospective studies are required to establish optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Keywords

• Cesarean scar pregnancy
• treatment
• treatment approaches
• reproductive outcome

References

1. Lai YM, Lee JD, Lee CL, Chen TC, Soong YK. An ectopic pregnancy embedded in the myometrium of a previous cesarean section scar. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan. Published online January 1, 1995. Accessed February 23, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/abs/10.3109/00016349509024394
2. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207 (1):14-29. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.007
3. Huo S, Shen L, Ju Y, Liu K, Liu W. Treatments for cesarean scar pregnancy: 11-year experience at a medical center. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2023;36(1):2162818. doi:10.1080/14767058.2022.2162818
4. Seow KM, Huang LW, Lin YH, Yan-Sheng Lin M, Tsai YL, Hwang JL. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(3):247-253. doi:10.1002/uog.974
5. Jaunıaux E, Burton GJ. Pathophysiology of placenta accreta spectrum disorders: a review of current findings. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;61(4):743-754. doi:10.1097/GRF.0000000000000392
6. Tantbirojn P, Crum CP, Parast MM. Pathophysiology of placenta creta: the role of decidua and extravillous trophoblast. Placenta. 2008;29(7):639-645. doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2008.04.008
7. Jauniaux E, Hussein AM, Elbarmelgy RM, Elbarmelgy RA, Burton GJ. Failure of placental detachment in accreta placentation is associated with excessive fibrinoid deposition at the utero-placental interface. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;226(2):243.e1-243.e10. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.026
8. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy is a precursor of morbidly adherent placenta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(3):346-353. doi:10.1002/uog.13426

9. Kaelin Agten A, Cali G, Monteagudo A, Oviedo J, Ramos J, Timor-Tritsch I. The clinical outcome of cesarean scar pregnancies implanted “on the scar” versus “in the niche.” Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):510.e1-510.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.019
10. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Calì G, Kaelin Agten A, Palacios-Jaraquemada JM, D’Antonio F. Hidden in plain sight: role of residual myometrial thickness to predict outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2023;62(5):624-632. doi:10.1002/uog.26246
11. Zhang X, Pang Y, Ma Y, et al. A comparison between laparoscopy and hysteroscopy approach in treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy. Med (Baltimore). 2020;99(43):e22845. doi:10.1097/MD. 0000000000022845
12. Morlando M, Buca D, Timor-Tritsch I, et al. Reproductive outcome after cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99(10):1278-1289. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13918
13. Wu J, Ye J, OuYang Z, et al. Outcomes of reproduction following cesarean scar pregnancy treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;262:80-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.010
14. Rotas MA, Haberman S, Levgur M. Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1373. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000218690.24494.ce
15. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, El Refaey H, Kaelin Agten A, Arslan AA. Easy sonographic differential diagnosis between intrauterine pregnancy and cesarean delivery scar pregnancy in the early first trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(2):225.e1-225.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.028
16. Osborn DA, Williams TR, Craig BM. Cesarean scar pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31(9):1449-1456. doi:10.7863/jum.2012.31. 9.1449
17. Lee SR, Park SY, Park MH. Cesarean scar pregnancy associated with an impending uterine rupture diagnosed with 3-dimensional ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(5):531.e1-531.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.023
18. Wang CB, Chiu WWC, Lee CY, Sun YL, Lin YH, Tseng CJ. Cesarean scar defect: correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34(1):85-89. doi:10.1002/uog.6405
19. Toro-Bejarano M, Mora R, Timor-Tritsch IE, et al. Myomectomy scar pregnancy ‒ a serious, but scarcely reported entity: literature review and an instructive case. Case Reports Perinatal Med. 2021;10 (1). doi:10.1515/crpm-2021-0071
20. Krassas GE, Poppe K, Glinoer D. Thyroid function and human reproductive health. Endocr Rev. 2010;31(5):702-755. doi: 10.1210/er.2009-0041
21. Vasilopoulou E, Loubière LS, Lash GE, et al. Triiodothyronine regulates angiogenic growth factor and cytokine secretion by isolated human decidual cells in a cell-type specific and gestational age-dependent manner. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1161-1172. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu046
22. Ozler S, Oztas E, Kebapcilar A, Caglar AT. The role of thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroglobulin antibody in abnormally invasive placenta. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(25):5108-5116. doi:10.1080/14767058.2021.1875430
23. Timor-Tritsch IE, Khatib N, Monteagudo A, Ramos J, Berg R, Kovács S. Cesarean scar pregnancies: experience of 60 cases. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(4):601-610. doi:10.7863/ultra.34.4.601
24. Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, et al. Changes in ultrasonography indicators of abnormally invasive placenta during pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;140(3):319-325. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12413
25. Cali G, Forlani F, Timor-Tritsch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, Minneci G, D’Antonio F. Natural history ofc esarean scar pregnancy on prenatal ultrasound: the crossover sign. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(1):100-104. doi:10.1002/uog.16216
26. Shi J, Qin J, Wang W, Zhang H. [Clinical study on 57 cases with caesarean scar pregnancy]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2014;49 (1):18-21.
27. Ko JKY, Li RHW, Cheung VYT. Caesarean scar pregnancy: a 10-year experience. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(1):64-69. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12273